Political Discussion

[shark66]

The main reason that Dr. Paul will not get nominated is the simple fact that he sounds honest enough in his quest for a *real* change of how things are done in this country...

Nothing is scarier than change, especially when you've got a lot to lose...

Banksters and their pawns in Washington know they would have plenty to lose.

Misguided sheep think that they would have something to lose, not realizing that the road they're currently on - courtesy of the way things have been done for the past fifty years - is the one leading them to the slaughterhouse.

Good luck to us all.

[banca rotta]

The main reason that Dr. Paul will not get nominated is the simple fact that he sounds honest enough in his quest for a *real* change of how things are done in this country...

Nothing is scarier than change, especially when you've got a lot to lose...

Banksters and their pawns in Washington know they would have plenty to lose.

Misguided sheep think that they would have something to lose, not realizing that the road they're currently on - courtesy of the way things have been done for the past fifty years - is the one leading them to the slaughterhouse.

Good luck to us all.

This has been done throughout history. It's why hundreds of years ago it was illegal in America to educate a slave. No different today.

[jacko]

The real reason he does not stand a chance of the nomination is that he does not per take in retail campaigning like knocking on doors and press the flesh. Have you seen Paul actually campaign? He does show up at the debates and has last minute advert runs while his campaign coffers are bulging. You guys have been had. Paul runs for President so he can pad his Congressional campaign account which can be transferred from his Presidential account.

The main reason that Dr. Paul will not get nominated is the simple fact that he sounds honest enough in his quest for a *real* change of how things are done in this country...

Nothing is scarier than change, especially when you've got a lot to lose...

Banksters and their pawns in Washington know they would have plenty to lose.

Misguided sheep think that they would have something to lose, not realizing that the road they're currently on - courtesy of the way things have been done for the past fifty years - is the one leading them to the slaughterhouse.

Good luck to us all.

[shark66]

Paul runs for President so he can pad his Congressional campaign account which can be transferred from his Presidential account.

An excellent train of thoughts...

With one "small" oversight...

Dr. Paul has announced that he would NOT seek re-election for Congress...

So he'll be either our next President or a retiree...

Good luck to us all.

[banca rotta]

Ron Paul's Urgent Warning!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FHCkFPaePPQ#at=185

[sguerra923]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...FPaePPQ#at=185

People seriously educate yourself because time is not on our side and there is no end in site unless we do something about it. You can ignore it all you want but it will creep up to every person. Just go outside and look around, everything is going in the wrong direction for the "regular people". Look at other countries as examples of what this country is turning. If you choose to ignore and not believe who is fighting for you then I will respect your choice as a free person but please be peaceful when things start changing around you. You are the resistance.

[helpmeout]

People seriously educate yourself

The problem with that statement is that the person who states something like that usually means to educate oneself to that person's point of view.

I have educated myself. Ron Paul is not the answer. He will only make it worse. The tea baggers are not the answer, the recent debt debacle clearly shows that they are clueless. Republicans aren't the answer. They have shown that they will cave to the extreme.

So now, the question is: Can the Democrats do the job? They have a better chance as they are actually willing to RAISE taxes AND cut spending. Which is what is NEEDED to deal with the debt issue. If Clinton's tax increases had been left alone, we would not be where we are now.

Just cutting spending isn't going to do the job. And that is something that some people will never acknowledge.

[shark66]

So now, the question is: Can the Democrats do the job? They have a better chance as they are actually willing to RAISE taxes AND cut spending. Which is what is NEEDED to deal with the debt issue. If Clinton's tax increases had been left alone, we would not be where we are now.

You might need some additional educating if you really believe what you wrote above...

a) Democrats will raise taxes, and continue spending like it's their last day on Earth. In all fairness, vast majority of Republicans would do the same - spending wise.

b) Raising taxes - with or without cutting spending - is not the solution. We need an entire new tax code.

c) We might have been a trillion less in debt if Clinton's tax rates had been kept, but all jobs lost during his own second term, along with the disastrous Bush/Obama presidencies would still land us in the same spot...

Approach to taxes is an important part of the solution, but resolves nothing without *major* work on several other fields...

Good luck.

[helpmeout]

You might need some additional educating if you really believe what you wrote above...

a) Democrats will raise taxes, and continue spending like it's their last day on Earth. In all fairness, vast majority of Republicans would do the same - spending wise.

b) Raising taxes - with or without cutting spending - is not the solution. We need an entire new tax code.

c) We might have been a trillion less in debt if Clinton's tax rates had been kept, but all jobs lost during his own second term, along with the disastrous Bush/Obama presidencies would still land us in the same spot...

Approach to taxes is an important part of the solution, but resolves nothing without *major* work on several other fields...

Good luck.

You are the one who needs additional education if you really believe what you wrote.

a The Democrats were the ones who came up with a balanced budget. It was the Republicans who unbalanced it.
b Yes, rasing taxes and cutting spending is the solution. A new tax code? All we need to do is get rid of the loopholes in the one that exists. Something that the Republicans fought when President Obama wanted to close loopholes and cut even more spending.
c With Clinton's budget, we would have been in a better position to survive the Bush presidency. BTW, with more revenue coming in, we would not be in the same spot we are in now.

[shark66]

You are the one who needs additional education if you really believe what you wrote.

I'm a strong believer in continuing one's education until deathbed. Having said that...

a The Democrats were the ones who came up with a balanced budget. It was the Republicans who unbalanced it.

Coming up with balanced budget on paper is one thing, transforming that paper into reality is another.

You seem to focus a lot on Dems vs. Reps. I don't. To me, they're two just heads of an extremely dangerous monster.

b Yes, rasing taxes and cutting spending is the solution. A new tax code? All we need to do is get rid of the loopholes in the one that exists. Something that the Republicans fought when President Obama wanted to close loopholes and cut even more spending.

Good luck to anyone attempting that debacle, which would resemble closing holes in a wheel of Swiss cheese. Closing one hole inevitably opens up three new ones. By the time you're finally done - guess what - you've just invented cheddar. Why not switch to cheddar in the first place?

c With Clinton's budget, we would have been in a better position to survive the Bush presidency. BTW, with more revenue coming in, we would not be in the same spot we are in now.

That's why I said that we'd be one trillion less in a hole...but let's not forget that "more revenue" can be a debatable term - especially since we're debating fictional outcomes...even with tax cuts, the big businesses had outsourced just about every job they could...heavier tax burden would only had made it happen faster...

Simply put, there's too many different aspects that need to be addressed on a variety of levels...and taxing more while spending less would only prolong the agony...

There's no doubt in my mind that we'll get to see four more years of Obama, and that nothing - but nothing - will get resolved, even if the Dems keep the Senate.

We'll be worse off than we were in 2008. When we were worse of than in 2001...and so forth and so on, until we hit the end of Eisenhower's era...

And the very same would happen with any "out of the box" Republican candidate, even if they were to take over the Senate, and keep majority in the House.

Regardless of whatever campaign slogans each side can throw at us, *none* of them (save for a couple of principled hotheads on each side) has ANY interest in any real change...

The cause of death on Europe's certificate will be negative birth rate.

The cause of death of the U.S. will be political correctness.

Good luck to us all.

[Meatstick]

Yeah just what this country needs, four more years of Obama and everything will be fixed.

[banca rotta]

So now, the question is: Can the Democrats do the job? They have a better chance as they are actually willing to RAISE taxes AND cut spending. Which is what is NEEDED to deal with the debt issue. If Clinton's tax increases had been left alone, we would not be where we are now.

The answer is NO! They can't do it just as the republicans can't do it.

I absolutely cannot understand how you can say they are willing to cut spending and raise taxes when they extended the Bush tax cuts and put us 5 trillion deeper in debt since they took control of all 3 houses with the republican minority unable to stop them.

Snap out of it helpmeout!!! Your heart is in the right place sometimes, but your head isn't.

[msm859]

The answer is NO! They can't do it just as the republicans can't do it.

I absolutely cannot understand how you can say they are willing to cut spending and raise taxes when they extended the Bush tax cuts and put us 5 trillion deeper in debt since they took control of all 3 houses with the republican minority unable to stop them.

Snap out of it helpmeout!!! Your heart is in the right place sometimes, but your head isn't.

Actually there is an argument that we would be better off if McCain had won. I do not believe he would have been able to get an extension of the Bush tax cuts through a democratic congress. He would also have continued these stupid wars. He would not have mobilized the stupid tea party uprising in 2010. If he would have looked into health care he would have dusted off the 1992 Republican plan - which is what was adopted. The only down side I see is with Supreme Court justice appointments. Right now stupidity reigns among the masses - it is time for oblivion to set in. The only question is do we do it quick and let the Republicans take over completely or do we have a slow death with the divided government we now have?

[sguerra923]

What do you guys think of the Iowa Straw poll? Sounds like Dr. Paul is getting up there.

[helpmeout]

Snap out of it helpmeout!!! Your heart is in the right place sometimes, but your head isn't.

You are the one who needs to snap out of it. Just because I don't agree with you and recognize that Clinton DID more to deal with the deficit than ANY republican did doesn't mean that my head isn't in the right place. It just means that I am not a doom and gloom person, like you. And that's not a bad thing.